The CBS Washington bureau is still trying to pitch HealthCare.gov stories though the appetite in New York has faded. The bureau asks me to try to get access to the facilities where HealthCare.gov’s miracle fixes are under way. But HHS won’t let us in. So much for transparency.
For a story about how the repairs are progressing, I conduct a phone interview with John Engates, a technology expert with a company called Rackspace Hosting, a leading firm specializing in high-capacity e-commerce. Engates has been a vocal critic, calling the HealthCare.gov launch “one of the most spectacular public failures of any website ever.” He’s also attacked the lack of transparency.
But as we begin our interview, Engates sounds like a different man. He says the Obama folks have the best people making heroic efforts to fix the site. He says there are no politics involved and he couldn’t be more impressed and confident.
It’s so far out of line with what Engates has said in the recent past, I wonder what’s changed, so I ask him. He tells me that a few days before our interview, he’d gotten an invite from the White House to attend a private briefing on HealthCare.gov. So he hopped on a plane from San Antonio to Washington for a special session held in the White House Situation Room. Other invited companies included IBM, Salesforce.com, and ExactTarget.com. Some of the White House heavy hitters on hand were Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Chief Technology Officer Todd Park, Chief Information Officer Steven VanRoekel, and the official heading up the tech surge: Jeff Zients. It’s the kind of access the media can only dream of. After the White House briefing, the group was shuttled to the Maryland operations headquarters of contractor QSSI, where the government’s “war room” fix-it site is centered.
Engates tells me he has to be careful about what he reveals in our interview because the group was instructed not to share some aspects of what they observed, including specific website numbers and statistics displayed in the operations center.
The whole scenario is outrageous from a public access standpoint. There’s no legitimate reason why the Obama administration should exclude the media, then grant handpicked corporate officials special access—and tell them not to share what they see with the public. The White House is wielding control over assets and information that rightfully belong to the people, and doling them out to a chosen few in private industry in hopes they’ll become emissaries to advance the self-serving cause.
It seems to be working: Engates, the onetime critic, has turned positively bullish. I don’t blame him; in fact, he gives a very informative, honest interview, which I use in several daily news stories on the status of HealthCare.gov. If the White House had invited me to a special briefing, I would have gone, too. But I never get those invites.
It’s time to contact HHS again and ask when they’ll allow our camera into the facilities. I point out in my email to Peters that it’s inappropriate for the government to allow corporate executives admittance to public-funded facilities that have been denied the press. I get no response.
About this time, late November, other major news outlets that were pursuing the Obamacare story also seem to suddenly back off. The Christian Science Monitor notes the trend in an article published November 26, 2013: “Bit by bit, the media narrative around the travails of Obamacare and its main enrollment vehicle, HealthCare.gov, is starting to look up. Or to put it more precisely, it is no longer so crushingly negative . . . a competing story line is starting to emerge.”
The Monitor theorizes that the new “wave of positive stories” may be the result of reporters getting tired of wall-to-wall negativity, seeking out “happy stories for a change of pace.” But I see it as far less random. First of all, good reporters don’t make story judgments based on whether they’re “tired” of the direction of a story: they let the story dictate the coverage. If it’s negative, it’s negative. What I think is the bigger reason for the change of mood is also noted in the Monitor article: “The Obama administration has also ramped up its public relations efforts. . . .” And it’s working.
| THE BIG “GET”
I’m now plugged in to a wide variety of well-informed sources. The news hasn’t stopped happening just because the broadcasts aren’t interested in what I have to report. I keep digging. I can publish on the CBS News website, which provides a golden opportunity to reach a large number of people and has a nearly insatiable appetite for diverse content. For the many outside influences that work so hard to keep certain stories off TV, their efforts backfire when I publish on the Web. Those versions are sometimes more widely circulated than the broadcast stories and can be more thorough since the length restrictions aren’t as tight.
As 2013 draws to a close, the quintessential example of the political propaganda machine in action—and the media’s susceptibility to it—rears its head.
For a couple of weeks, I’d gotten tips that Oversight Republicans were bringing in various HealthCare.gov officials for closed-door interviews. Secondhand accounts from my sources lead me to believe that news is being made, but I don’t know the details. I work sources on the committee but come up empty.
“What did Tony Trenkle say?” I pinged my Hill contacts in an email, after learning that the newly retired CMS top technology executive had been there the day before.
No response.
I keep trying over the next few days. Nothing.
Then on Tuesday night, December 17, my home phone rings. The caller ID reads “unidentified.” When I answer, it’s one of my sources letting me know that CMS’s lead cybersecurity official, Teresa Fryer, has just spent six or seven hours answering questions before Oversight and she dropped a couple of bombshells.
Wednesday morning, I’m up on the Hill to fill in the blanks. I ask for an on-camera interview with Oversight’s chairman, Issa, and also with the lead Democrat on the Committee, Representative Elijah Cummings. The Democrats’ spokeswoman, Hoffman, says Cummings isn’t available so I also ask to speak to his deputy on the committee, Gerald Connolly, or any other Democrat who can talk about the issue. Since the House isn’t in session, I’ve offered to go to Cummings or Connolly wherever they may be. Hoffman says that no Democrat can be available for an interview. Later, Democrats would falsely claim that I didn’t give them the chance to weigh in.
In our interview, Issa tells me about one of Fryer’s shockers: that prior to October 1, she wanted to reject HealthCare.gov’s security certificate—the Authority to Operate—due to security risks but was overruled by her superiors.
“My recommendation was a denial of an ATO [Authority to Operate],” Fryer had told Democrats and Republicans in a recent closed-door interview. She said she gave the advice to her boss, CMS’s chief information officer, Trenkle. The man who had just retired and wasn’t talking publicly.
“I had discussions with him on this and told him that my evaluation of this was a high [security] risk,” Fryer testified. She said she briefed HHS officials as well.
This is a bombshell. The Obama administration has expended a great deal of effort trying to craft the impression—sometimes under oath—that there were never any serious security concerns. But now we know that the top official over security at CMS believed things were so bad, the website shouldn’t have been launched at all. And she can’t be labeled as a politically motivated, disgruntled ex-employee. She’s a current, sitting, senior manager.
By any neutral measure, this is an important advancement in the HealthCare.gov story. But with the light switch at CBS firmly in the “off” position, it will be next to impossible to get this kind of information on a broadcast.
So I’m in the familiar position of applying my efforts on two simultaneous fronts: first, reporting the story amid strong pushback from the administration. Second, trying to convince my New York superiors that this is a story.
I ask HHS and Oversight Democrats for comment on Fryer’s testimony. They pretend this is the first they’ve heard of her negative security
recommendation.
Peters from HHS: “[C]ould you all share with us exactly what it is that you would like for us to comment on? Do you have a transcript or other document that you have received?”
(Mine and Pump Strategy.)
Peters also makes a boldly false statement. She claims her agency doesn’t know anything about Fryer’s startling testimony because “we were not in [her] interview with Oversight.”
The thing is, I know from my sources that HHS was in the interview, represented by Jennifer O’Connor, one of those special advisors HHS hired in late November. Oversight Committee Democrats were present for the Fryer interview as well. It’s ridiculous for Peters to claim they’re all in the dark.
“I’m told you did have staff in the interview,” I tell Peters. “Jen O’Connor. Didn’t you know that? She can tell you more than I can.”
Peters acknowledges that O’Connor was present for the interview after all, but keeps her hard hat on and continues mining without missing a beat. It takes a certain kind of person to be untruthful and then display utter lack of contrition when caught.
“If there are specific comments Teresa made about this issue or documents that you have obtained, it would be helpful to see those so that we can make sure we’re getting you the right information you are looking for,” Peters emails. The persistence with which she’s fishing leads me to believe that Fryer must have said something else damaging. Peters is trying to figure out if I know.
Later on the phone, Peters reverts to her claim that “we didn’t have anyone in the Fryer interview.” She must be reading to various media outlets from the same talking points and has forgotten that I know better. I remind her.
“Jen O’Connor works with you at HHS, right? I told you, she was there,” I tell her.
“Yes,” Peters relents.
She’s still touchy over that recent story I’d done about Chao and the high-risk security findings.
“We want to help you be sure your story is accurate and fact-checked,” Peters tells me, “so that you don’t make any mistakes and can avoid a repeat of your last story.”
The idea that I would rely on HHS to fact-check a story is ludicrous.
“There were no mistakes in the last story, we’re very happy with it,” I correct her.
“I’m sure you are,” she shoots back.
Several hours after Kim and I first contacted Oversight Democrats, at 3:17 p.m., their spokeswoman Hoffman complains that I’m being unfair in expecting them to have any response to Fryer’s testimony so quickly. And she’s got her miner’s hard hat on, too.
“We are working very hard to respond to this request with extremely short notice,” Hoffman writes in an email. “As we discussed, it would be most helpful if you could provide information about the documents you obtained from the majority. Without this context, it is hard for us to provide a complete and thorough response to your inquiry. It is unfortunate when outlets report on excerpts selectively leaked from the majority without giving the minority access to the same information so we can provide a full response. This would also help ensure that your story is fully vetted, fact-checked, and balanced. Please let me know what additional information you can provide so that we can respond appropriately.”
The tone deviates from Hoffman’s usual informal, friendly style. I get the sense that she (or whoever wrote the email) is writing it to share with media surrogates who will assist in the post-story spin. It’s incredibly disingenuous for her to claim the majority is leaking information “without giving the minority access to the same information.” Democrats had the information before anybody: Fryer works for HHS, was debriefed by them before her interview with Oversight, and Democrats and HHS attended her interview.
Think about how twisted the spin is: The public officials who are withholding public information are claiming to be out of the loop on information that they’ve had longer than anybody. They’re criticizing Republicans for “leaking” material that belongs to the public, which they, the Democrats, have misrepresented and withheld. The very public officials who have repeatedly provided untrue information are suggesting that I should rely on them to fact-check and vet my reports.
I reply.
“Sorry but I disagree that notice is ‘extremely short’ since your folks heard everything Fryer testified to in real time yesterday, the same time everybody else there did. In fact, I’m told the administration was well aware in advance as to the scope of what Fryer was going to say, so you guys have actually had more time than anybody else to think about all of this. I’d love to have any documents that you can offer that are relevant, but I don’t have any to share with you at this time. Our inquiry is quite simple and I don’t think there is really anything difficult or obtuse about it so we are still looking forward to your prompt response.”
I run Fryer’s impeaching testimony by an inside source who supports Obamacare and has been helpful in providing context on its flaws. This source tells me, “It’s pretty damning when the top CMS IT security person strongly recommends that a project [HealthCare.gov] not be cleared to operate but then is overruled. Well done—it looks like you’ve got a scoop on your hands!”
Kim says surely the Evening News will find this story too big to pass up, even in the current discouraging climate. So we pitch it. But my Washington senior producer has already told us the broadcast isn’t very “keen” on the story. And the New York group doesn’t usually put stock in guidance from the reporter level—at least not from me.
Nonetheless, I argue to the managers that we, the media, didn’t do a very good job looking into HealthCare.gov before the rollout and we have a responsibility to do a better job now. I say that we have a public duty to report the security vulnerabilities, especially on the eve of the deadline for a large number of Americans to sign up on the website. But I’m not changing their minds. This isn’t about the worthiness of the story. Other forces are at play.
I’m not the only reporter who’s meeting up with resistance from superiors on this story. I know from my sources that other national news reporters are on the case but also having trouble getting this same story past their editors.
Meanwhile, at 4:18 p.m. on Wednesday, HHS sends me a comment that doesn’t directly address Fryer’s testimony that she recommended HealthCare.gov not be allowed to launch due to security risks. Instead, HHS states that all the fears about security risks in the past never came to pass.
I’m about to find out that’s yet another misrepresentation.
It turns out, Fryer had dropped a second bombshell when she testified to Oversight: two high-risk security findings surfaced on HealthCare.gov after it went live October 1. One had been flagged the day before Fryer spoke to Oversight. This must be what Hoffman and Peters were mining to see if I knew about.
I return to Peters with this new information and she reacts as though it’s the first she’s heard of it. I’m to believe that the most serious category of security issues was flagged inside HHS and that Fryer discussed it in a congressional interview at which a top HHS spinner was present—but that Peters, the HHS spokesman, knew nothing of it until I mentioned it just now.
About the same time, Oversight Democrats are also fishing to see if I’ve learned of this new revelation.
“Has Chairman Issa’s office provided you with any specific info from the [Fryer] interview? We would like the opportunity to provide additional context,” Hoffman emails.
Additional context? They haven’t given any yet.
“Not disclosing sources,” I tell Hoffman, “my information is that Fryer reported there have been at least two high [security risk] findings, one discovered in testing last week related to a November incident and another on Monday of this week. Your folks know of this.”
I can almost hear Hoffman muttering, Crap, she knows!
It’s closing in on 10 p.m. Thursday and Peters emails HHS’s respo
nse to Fryer’s testimony about the high-risk findings: one has been fixed and the other was a “false alarm.” That may or may not be true. No proof is offered (though plenty should exist since the security process requires extensive documentation). Some in the media will accept these claims, as they do each new assertion the government rolls out, as if there’s no history of misrepresentation. But without any documentation, it should rightfully be characterized as their side of the story and nothing more. I ask Peters whether there have been other high-risk findings besides the two that Fryer referenced. She won’t answer.
All of this news is a game changer: The worst category of security risk is no longer just theoretical. It’s actually surfaced and we’re learning of it for the first time from a knowledgeable insider: Fryer. It contradicts Obama administration claims that there haven’t been any real security issues, only unfounded fears whipped up by Republicans. I write up an informational summary for CBS. One executive recognizes the significance and responds, “Pretty damn good story, Sharyl.”
In the end, though, no broadcast takes the story. So I publish it on CBSNews.com the next morning. ABC News and FOX have just published their own versions, also online. None of the big three networks finds room to mention these important findings on their evening broadcasts. In fact, it’s as if they’re going out of their way to avoid it, seeing as how it would have fit so naturally with news that they do air about President Obama holding his final news conference of the year—largely devoted to HealthCare.gov controversies.
But with the story widely circulating on the Web, it’s time for the next phase of the administration’s PR campaign. Representative Cummings and Oversight Democrats now issue their first comment on Fryer’s testimony, after my story has published.
Predictably, once again, they personally attack Issa and, by implication, the news media.
Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington Page 27
